Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute f relates to a plot No. 183 in village Nagnedhi, district Banda. In the basic year this plot was recorded in the name of the respondent No. 2 Sheo Nath who has since -died during the pendency of the writ petition and is substituted by his heirs. Objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Mohan father of the petitioner Bhaua. Mohan was recorded in Varg 9 and his case was that he perfected his right by adverse possession. In proof of his possession the petitioner filed documentary evidence including khasra extracts of 1364-F, 1365-F, 1366- F, 1369-F, 1371-F, 1372-F, 1373-F and 1377-F and a copy of the judgment in a suit filed under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act instituted by Bitani and others in which Mohan was one of the defendant decided on 31.3.1961. In this suit Mohan was found in possession. Two witnesses by way of oral evidence were examined in support of the petitioner's case, namely, Banshi Lal and Sheo Darsan. Respondent No. 2 examined himself as a witness in support of his case. The Consolidation Officer found that Mohan was in possession for more than six years and had therefore perfected his right and; consequently the objections filed by Mohan were allowed. The respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the revision filed by Sheo Nath the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given two findings. First that the khasra entry of 1364 fasali in favour of the petitioner could not be relied upon in as much as the procedure provided under Land Records Manual was not followed and P.A. 10 was not issued. He also found that the possession of the petitioner began in 1364-F and that the suit under section 229-B/209 was instituted on 16.6.1962 by Bitani and others the original tenure-holder from whom the respondent No. 2 has subsequently purchased the disputed land and that the petitioner has not matured his right by adverse possession Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri B.M. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) It was submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are erroneous in law on tire point that the petitioner had not perfected his rights by being in unauthorised possession for more than the prescribed period of limitation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the oral evidence. What has been observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the oral evidence has no importance in view of the documentary evidence of the khasra entries In my opinion the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is erroneous in law. It is not in dispute that in the suit for division of holdings a finding was recorded that father of the petitioner was in possession. His suit was decreed in the year 1961. Oral evidence was adduced by the petitioner. Adverse possession can be proved both by documentary evidence as well as by oral evidence vide Shiv Nandan v. Board of Revenue, 1980 RD 73. As regards the entries in the revenue records, which began from 1364 Fasli it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of issuance of P.A 10 was not introduced at the time of entry of 1364 Fasli and therefore the khasra entry also could not have been ignored.;